If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

The reasons why the Giants won't be a dynasty or even really considered is because we stunk or were very average for 2 of the last 4-5 years. A dynasty wins consistently. We haven't been. The regular season is very important especially when it comes to public perception.

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

there won't ever be another dynasty football team...the game has changed...you will have teams that are consistent but not consistently going to the SB and coming away with the lombardi...you have to be good and lucky...can the NYG repeat??...i think so but it will not make us a dynasty but will leave some jaws dropped......

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

[quote user="gumby742"]The reasons why the Giants won't be a dynasty or even really considered is because we stunk or were very average for 2 of the last 4-5 years. A dynasty wins consistently. We haven't been. The regular season is very important especially when it comes to public perception.[/quote]</P>

And that's why he or she calls themselves Gumby, what team has been a winner every year except the Pats who play with the Jets, Dolphins, and Buffalo, if the GMEN played those 3 twice a year they would be winners every year to.</P>

Super Bowls determine Champions, no matter how they get there, weren't the Packers a wild card when they won theirs, and who did they have to play, the Bears, Vikings, Lions, give me a break.</P>

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

[quote user="Joe Morrison"]

[quote user="gumby742"]The reasons why the Giants won't be a dynasty or even really considered is because we stunk or were very average *for 2 of the last 4-5 years.* A dynasty wins consistently.* We haven't been.* The regular season is very important especially when it comes to public perception.[/quote]</P>

And that's why he or she calls themselves Gumby, what team has been a winner every year except the Pats who play with the Jets, Dolphins, and Buffalo, if the GMEN played those 3 twice a year they would be winners every year to.</P>

Super Bowls determine Champions, no matter how they get there, weren't the Packers a wild card when they won theirs, and who did they have to play, the Bears, Vikings, Lions, give me a break.</P>[/quote]
Even the Pats missed the playoffs after going 18-1 with 1 Giant loss. Rodgers has only had 2 good seasons since he has been starting and people are calling him the best ever. Next year the Packers are going 10-6

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

"...two minute drill at the end of each quarter, Ya'know with the wind like this blowing mooch and marshall into the ocean...If that's behind me I think were getting 3 from 70 so holla at your boy. IF YOU DON"T PICK ME THAT'S A JOKE RIGHT?" - Justin Tucker, Ravens kicker

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

I think that a team has to win multiple super bowls with the same core personnel before considering labeling them a 'dynasty'. The packers have a great team, and they do have the capacity to do it, but there are a lot of other teams out there who could do it too. I would wait to see if Rodgers can get his team one more championship before taking crazy.

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

[quote user="Joe Morrison"]

[quote user="gumby742"]The reasons why the Giants won't be a dynasty or even really considered is because we stunk or were very average for 2 of the last 4-5 years. A dynasty wins consistently. We haven't been. The regular season is very important especially when it comes to public perception.[/quote]</P>

And that's why he or she calls themselves Gumby, what team has been a winner every year except the Pats who play with the Jets, Dolphins, and Buffalo, if the GMEN played those 3 twice a year they would be winners every year to.</P>

Super Bowls determine Champions, no matter how they get there, weren't the Packers a wild card when they won theirs, and who did they have to play, the Bears, Vikings, Lions, give me a break.</P>

[/quote]</P>

Different strokes for different folks. Being a dynasty is all about public perception. Honestly, the only year where I felt good about our chances going into the post season was 2008. Prior to that we kind of walked into the playoffs with our tails between our legs. We also had 4 straight one and dones.</P>

Compare that to the likes of the Steelers and Patriots, who have been absolutely dominant pretty much for the majority of the last 10 years. Those teams win convincingly, we don't. The Giants give me a heartattack practically every game because we play down to the level of our competition.</P>

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

I mean...the Giants are already closer than the Packers. Two in five seasons as opposed to the Packers who only have one in the last 15 seasons. If the Giants win another in the next year or two, one can argue that this is a dynasty...I guess it's a pretty subjective term, but 3 in 6 seasons is a dynasty as far as I'm concerned.

We are getting ahead of ourselves here though...let's discuss it if it actually happens!

Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

[quote user="gumby742"][quote user="Joe Morrison"]

[quote user="gumby742"]The reasons why the Giants won't be a dynasty or even really considered is because we stunk or were very average *for 2 of the last 4-5 years.* A dynasty wins consistently.* We haven't been.* The regular season is very important especially when it comes to public perception.[/quote]</P>

And that's why he or she calls themselves Gumby, what team has been a winner every year except the Pats who play with the Jets, Dolphins, and Buffalo, if the GMEN played those 3 twice a year they would be winners every year to.</P>

Super Bowls determine Champions, no matter how they get there, weren't the Packers a wild card when they won theirs, and who did they have to play, the Bears, Vikings, Lions, give me a break.</P>

[/quote]</P>

Different strokes for different folks.* Being a dynasty is all about public perception.* Honestly, the only year where I felt good about our chances going into the post season was 2008.* Prior to that we kind of walked into the playoffs with our tails between our legs.* We also had 4 straight one and dones.</P>

Compare that to the likes of the Steelers and Patriots, who have been absolutely dominant pretty much for the majority of the last 10 years.* Those teams win convincingly, we don't.* The Giants give me a heartattack practically every game because we play down to the level of our competition.</P>[/quote]

We have NEVER had 4 straight "one and dones" in the playoffs, even going all the way to the beginning of the Super Bowl era, 45 years.

And, in fact, under Eli-Coughlin era we have lost only 3 playoff games.

The only playoff season that it could be said we "walked into" with "tails between our legs" in the LAST 19 YEARS was 2006, when we got in with an 8-8 record.

In 1993, 97 (Division winner), 2000 (Division winner), 02, 05 (Division winner), 07, 08, and this year (Divison winner), we definitely did not "walk into the playoffs with our tails between our legs).

While the Steelers have arguably been dominant for most of the past 8 years, they certainly did not win their Super Bowls "convincingly".

In fact I would argue the only Super Bowl they have been involved in any "convincing" manner since 1979, has been their 2 LOSSES, in 1995 and 2010.

Patriots have been, along with the Colts and Steelers to lesser extents, the cream of the NFL the past 11 years, true enough. And many regular season games have resulted in "convincing" wins, if you will, especially in 2007.

But none--NONE-- of the 5 Super Bowls they have played in, have been won OR lost "convincingly". That is, if by "convincingly" you mean huge gaps in score differential.

And, oh my, the past 2 seasons the Patriots were "one and done". And they missed the playoffs the year before that.

Even more strange, including the 2007 Super Bowl the Patriots are 2-4 in playoffs and Super Bowls since 2007.

While, oh my god, the Giants are 5-1 in playoffs and Super Bowls since 2007.